Nanoscaffold based stem cell regeneration therapy: recent advancement and future potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Over the past years, extensive research has been directed towards tissue engineering using conventional scaffolds. In-depth studies in this field have led to the realization that in vivo cells interact with the extracellular matrix, composed of nanofibers at sub-micron scale, which not only provides the mechanical support to the cells but also plays a key role in regulation of cellular behavior. This has led to the development of nanofibrous scaffold (NFS) technology which in combination with stem cells is emerging as an important tool in the development of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: This review summarizes the three methods of nanofibrous scaffold preparation and provides a state-of-the-art update on the recent advancement in the use of nanoscaffolds in stem cell regeneration therapy. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The review gives the reader an insight on nanoscaffold based therapy methods, such as how these scaffolds can potentially be designed and used in successful development of stem cell based therapies. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: NFS technology when coupled with stem cells and exploited in the right way has a strong potential of being used in stem cell based regenerative medicine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".